RIAA, This Is Earth, Please Come In!

ccnull writes "You might remember George Ziemann as the musician who found his own music banned from eBay because it was recorded on CD-R. Now he's back with a new rant about the RIAA's statistics, which blame piracy for the dire condition of the music industry. What's to blame? Price hikes and fewer titles. The latest rant (including analysis of the RIAA's own data) is mainly circulating by email, here's a readable link. (As an interesting side note, Ziemann says that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)"

Comments

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[gmp]

okay, all together now: "piracy=copyright infringement" dates at least to 1769. See e.g. Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303.

No case of a prosecution in the Star-Chamber, for printing without a license, or against letters patent, or pirating another man's copy, or any other disorderly printing, has been found. ...

But it is certain, that down to the year 1640, copies were protected and secured from piracy, by a much speedier and more effectial remedy, than actions at law, or bills in equity.

You might also check out Bouvier's law dictionary, 1856 edition.

PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.

... but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.

I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved reduces the harm. Either you agree with the statutory monopoly set up by copyright law, or you don't. If you do, then any copying, not matter how easily this can be accomplished, must be seen as an illegitimate inteference with the owners exclusive right to copy the material.

CDBABY

[Gulthek]

C'mon people, get with the program!

CDBaby is one of the few online stories that really get it.

• They give musicians a big cut of their sales
  
• they have awesome recommendations
  
• you can listen to 2 minutes from 4 tracks of the CD
  
• you can return the CD if you aren't happy with it!
  

I left RIAA music behind a few months ago, why not try and do the same?

Why CD sales are down

[Animats]

The surprising thing is that CD sales are only down 9%. Consider:

• Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them.
• Most of the radio stations in the US are now owned by Clear Channel or Infinity Broadcasting, which play the same old music over and over again.
• Everybody has already converted from analog vinyl to CD.
• We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music.
• Concert attendance is down about as much as CD sales are down.
• Rock music tanked a while back, and nothing since has a similarly broad appeal.

With all this, it's surprising that CD sales aren't down something like 50%. We may yet see that happen.

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?

According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.

Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?

There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...

The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "

The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!